Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> +1 for adding parens; we might want to make a function of it
> someday.
Makes sense; will do.
> I don't much like the "XactUses..." aspect of it; that's just
> about meaningless, because almost everything in PG could be said
> to be "used" by a transaction. How about
> IsolationUsesXactSnapshot (versus IsolationUsesStmtSnapshot)?
And IsolationIsSerializable to make that test symmetrical?
Any objections to this plan?
-Kevin
